Assault weapons

Shiftfaced
Posts
859
Joined
12/15/2008
Location
Ruby Ridge, ID US
8/16/2019 6:47pm
The second amendment is an insurance police against a tyranical government forming. I can have my guns, use them responsibly and the government does not know...
The second amendment is an insurance police against a tyranical government forming. I can have my guns, use them responsibly and the government does not know that I have them or how many I have. If shit goes sideways, there’s millions like me to come to put down the tyrant if required.

And if we were to elect a tyrant who wanted to abolish the second amendment and take away guns, I would hope (and expect) that he/she could not marshall the military to put down the large confrontation that will surely occur and avoid an ending like Chinese citizens experienced during the Tianaman Square massacre.

And if an assault weapon ban were to be imposed I doubt that local authorities would actively go after owners they know are in possesion of them to confiscate them unless that owner were to do something irresponsible or threatening with them.
Say we elect that tyrant, and you are going to stop him.

Are you *JUST” looking for that specific guy, and shoot him to death?

Who else?

Local cops?
National Guard?
County Sheriff?
State Police?

Who is going to be knocking on your door, that you need to kill?

Is the tyrannical President knocking on your door, and taking care of all the confiscations himself?
2
8/16/2019 6:56pm
Idaho eh. Bet you moved there from California.
Shiftfaced wrote:
I like to wager.

Got anything behind that statement?
Nope. Just a guess. I've been wrong before.

Idaho, before it got invaded by Californians, used to be all about freedom. Thus, my guess.

Wyoming, the least populous, most rugged free state, is next.
1
Shiftfaced
Posts
859
Joined
12/15/2008
Location
Ruby Ridge, ID US
8/16/2019 7:03pm
Nope. Just a guess. I've been wrong before. Idaho, before it got invaded by Californians, used to be all about freedom. Thus, my guess. Wyoming, the...
Nope. Just a guess. I've been wrong before.

Idaho, before it got invaded by Californians, used to be all about freedom. Thus, my guess.

Wyoming, the least populous, most rugged free state, is next.
Ha ha!

Idaho, all about “freedom”.

Washington, Oregon and even UTAH allow the smoking of the Devil Weed.

Idaho?

No way. No how.

Out here, we are ALL ABOUT freedom, personal choice, less government and letting people make their own decisions.

Except for those Left-Handed cigarettes.

No. “Idaho” knows what is best on that front.
1
2
8/16/2019 7:14pm
All I know, as a former Californian, many of my friends are moving to Idaho. Stand by to have it Californianized. Thanks for the input, Shift.
1

The Shop

Premix
Posts
1514
Joined
1/5/2014
Location
AS US
8/16/2019 7:31pm
sam hain wrote:
Let me throw something else out there, what are you all's opinions on the mental health debate regarding back ground checks?
“Mental Health” man, that’s a broad brush. And how the heck do we implement that into a background check for firearms. I’ve seen a lot of folks advocating for this, but I often wonder how they would carry this out. Do they make you get a psych evaluation? Every time you want to purchase or one every other year? I mean day to day ones mental health can change. Can these be flawed and pass a person through that has other intentions? Is it better than doing nothing? Or are we just letting the tail wag the dog.

Honestly, if we’re going to have them for guns, then please by all means tag that onto one’s ability to operate a car. So many people with road rage, driving drunk after a rough day at work and too many pops at happy hour, ect.

America is in an odd spot right now with a lot of issues that need adjusting, not fixing. You don’t tear down the whole house to fix a leaking pipe.
2
Shiftfaced
Posts
859
Joined
12/15/2008
Location
Ruby Ridge, ID US
8/16/2019 9:00pm
Premix wrote:
“Mental Health” man, that’s a broad brush. And how the heck do we implement that into a background check for firearms. I’ve seen a lot of...
“Mental Health” man, that’s a broad brush. And how the heck do we implement that into a background check for firearms. I’ve seen a lot of folks advocating for this, but I often wonder how they would carry this out. Do they make you get a psych evaluation? Every time you want to purchase or one every other year? I mean day to day ones mental health can change. Can these be flawed and pass a person through that has other intentions? Is it better than doing nothing? Or are we just letting the tail wag the dog.

Honestly, if we’re going to have them for guns, then please by all means tag that onto one’s ability to operate a car. So many people with road rage, driving drunk after a rough day at work and too many pops at happy hour, ect.

America is in an odd spot right now with a lot of issues that need adjusting, not fixing. You don’t tear down the whole house to fix a leaking pipe.
That is a STICKY wicket.

Who performs that mental evaluation?

The “government”!

What if they start dishing out too many “Not capable of possessing firearms” decisions?

Who signs up for that job?

Who protects those evaluators from the people they have said “no” to?
Motomaniac
Posts
24
Joined
1/21/2009
Location
Phoenix, AZ US
8/16/2019 9:07pm
I am not a firearms EXPERT by any means. How ever, I'm a retired LEO. We carried frangible rounds in our ARs. The frangible round is non lethal after penetrating 3 sheets of drywall. The 9mm pistol I carried was still lethal after 7 sheets of drywall. These stats are for the rounds that we carried. I believe the frangible rounds reduced my departments liability. I have been to several shootings and the frangible round is extremely lethal as well as being safer for people in other rooms.
I am all for the second amendment and crime is reduced when the population is armed. Urban environments excluded.
2
8/17/2019 1:12pm
The second amendment is an insurance police against a tyranical government forming. I can have my guns, use them responsibly and the government does not know...
The second amendment is an insurance police against a tyranical government forming. I can have my guns, use them responsibly and the government does not know that I have them or how many I have. If shit goes sideways, there’s millions like me to come to put down the tyrant if required.

And if we were to elect a tyrant who wanted to abolish the second amendment and take away guns, I would hope (and expect) that he/she could not marshall the military to put down the large confrontation that will surely occur and avoid an ending like Chinese citizens experienced during the Tianaman Square massacre.

And if an assault weapon ban were to be imposed I doubt that local authorities would actively go after owners they know are in possesion of them to confiscate them unless that owner were to do something irresponsible or threatening with them.
Shiftfaced wrote:
Say we elect that tyrant, and you are going to stop him. Are you *JUST” looking for that specific guy, and shoot him to death? Who...
Say we elect that tyrant, and you are going to stop him.

Are you *JUST” looking for that specific guy, and shoot him to death?

Who else?

Local cops?
National Guard?
County Sheriff?
State Police?

Who is going to be knocking on your door, that you need to kill?

Is the tyrannical President knocking on your door, and taking care of all the confiscations himself?
There are enough citizens in this country to take that Tyrant out.

Gridlock is actually nice. It prevents massive swings in government policy. So we don’t gave massive huge vacuums and constant war for change over.

How many presidents we got now? And Not a shot fired with every one of those political changes. Can’t say the same for many totalitarian countries.
ns503
Posts
3987
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
NS Toolies CA
8/17/2019 2:05pm
The second amendment is an insurance police against a tyranical government forming. I can have my guns, use them responsibly and the government does not know...
The second amendment is an insurance police against a tyranical government forming. I can have my guns, use them responsibly and the government does not know that I have them or how many I have. If shit goes sideways, there’s millions like me to come to put down the tyrant if required.

And if we were to elect a tyrant who wanted to abolish the second amendment and take away guns, I would hope (and expect) that he/she could not marshall the military to put down the large confrontation that will surely occur and avoid an ending like Chinese citizens experienced during the Tianaman Square massacre.

And if an assault weapon ban were to be imposed I doubt that local authorities would actively go after owners they know are in possesion of them to confiscate them unless that owner were to do something irresponsible or threatening with them.
Shiftfaced wrote:
Say we elect that tyrant, and you are going to stop him. Are you *JUST” looking for that specific guy, and shoot him to death? Who...
Say we elect that tyrant, and you are going to stop him.

Are you *JUST” looking for that specific guy, and shoot him to death?

Who else?

Local cops?
National Guard?
County Sheriff?
State Police?

Who is going to be knocking on your door, that you need to kill?

Is the tyrannical President knocking on your door, and taking care of all the confiscations himself?
There are enough citizens in this country to take that Tyrant out. Gridlock is actually nice. It prevents massive swings in government policy. So we don’t...
There are enough citizens in this country to take that Tyrant out.

Gridlock is actually nice. It prevents massive swings in government policy. So we don’t gave massive huge vacuums and constant war for change over.

How many presidents we got now? And Not a shot fired with every one of those political changes. Can’t say the same for many totalitarian countries.
You can say that for virtually every other democratic country in the world though. And they dont have a 2nd.
1
1
Mr. G
Posts
4188
Joined
12/23/2009
Location
Riverside, CA US
8/17/2019 2:40pm
As has already been said Assault rifles are already illegal. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't AR's in CA have to be loaded one at a time? This would make the old M1 Garand much more capable since one can load 8 at at time and it's more powerful. It doesn't look dangerous to the Left so it goes unnoticed. Good thing since I have a McCoy. That thing is amazing.
borg
Posts
5717
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA US
8/17/2019 4:57pm
Mr. G wrote:
As has already been said Assault rifles are already illegal. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't AR's in CA have to be loaded one at...
As has already been said Assault rifles are already illegal. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't AR's in CA have to be loaded one at a time? This would make the old M1 Garand much more capable since one can load 8 at at time and it's more powerful. It doesn't look dangerous to the Left so it goes unnoticed. Good thing since I have a McCoy. That thing is amazing.
Working on any songs?
Subject change wouldn't hurt.
captmoto
Posts
5122
Joined
4/22/2009
Location
Rancho Cucamonga, CA US
8/17/2019 10:26pm Edited Date/Time 8/17/2019 10:27pm
rosebud441 wrote:
hate to interrupt the circle jerk here...

but a clear majority of voters actually support a ban on assault weapons.. whatever you define them as..

Most people can't define an assault weapon. It is a term conjured up by the media. California has such a ban and it does absolutely nothing to change the functionality of the weapon or make it less lethal. The ban calls out scary items on the rifle like a grip and a stock and a screw on device on the muzzle. When those items are removed or replaced it can then become compliant with the law, but again, it does nothing to change it's functionality.
3
Shiftfaced
Posts
859
Joined
12/15/2008
Location
Ruby Ridge, ID US
8/18/2019 6:39am
Call it whatever you want, we all know what we are talking about.

I realize that nothing will really change.

Thanks to the NRA, that have ensured our nation is flooded with guns, and they have worked very diligently to ensure as many people have access to them as possible.

We incarcerate more people than any other nation.

We experience a more mass shooting events than any other nation.

(4+ “points”) among our 4chan brothers.

More Americans yearly turn guns on each other than were killed on 9/11.

Yet some think is is just fine, so nothing will be done.

In my opinion, that is really the end of the story.

4chan wins, we will continue to kill each other, and we have nobody to blame other than ourselves.

Hasta.

Shifty
1
5
Mr. G
Posts
4188
Joined
12/23/2009
Location
Riverside, CA US
8/18/2019 9:26am
Mr. G wrote:
As has already been said Assault rifles are already illegal. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't AR's in CA have to be loaded one at...
As has already been said Assault rifles are already illegal. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't AR's in CA have to be loaded one at a time? This would make the old M1 Garand much more capable since one can load 8 at at time and it's more powerful. It doesn't look dangerous to the Left so it goes unnoticed. Good thing since I have a McCoy. That thing is amazing.
borg wrote:
Working on any songs?
Subject change wouldn't hurt.
Yes! Been busy with work but I always squeak in music stuff.
captmoto
Posts
5122
Joined
4/22/2009
Location
Rancho Cucamonga, CA US
8/18/2019 10:55am
Mr. G wrote:
As has already been said Assault rifles are already illegal. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't AR's in CA have to be loaded one at...
As has already been said Assault rifles are already illegal. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't AR's in CA have to be loaded one at a time? This would make the old M1 Garand much more capable since one can load 8 at at time and it's more powerful. It doesn't look dangerous to the Left so it goes unnoticed. Good thing since I have a McCoy. That thing is amazing.
Yes but there are mag loaders to speed up the process. Mags must be fixed or require disassembly to change magazines and are limited to 10 round magazines. There are already work arounds for the lock. Stupid California legislators are playing whack-a-mole with gun laws.
McCoy = M1?
Barrett57
Posts
2270
Joined
8/31/2010
Location
GB
8/18/2019 11:29am
I always read the argument “you think You’re taking on the US army with your little ar15 ?” Yea. I do. People of the us army...
I always read the argument “you think
You’re taking on the US army with your little ar15 ?”

Yea. I do. People of the us army are citizens of the United States. The us army isn’t going to lay waste to
It’s citizens in the name of government. In my opinion the soldiers in the army would defend the citizen first before the government. Soldiers wouldn’t take unlawful orders.

Take ww2 for example. Regular German soldiers were doing their job. The Tyrannical govt developed the SS to destroy everything they ordered to destroy. The us army doesn’t have that. Our checks and balances prevent a tyrannical government. But if those checks and balances were ever given up....then a tyrant could create a modern SS force in the us army. And if the citizens don’t have guns. God help us.
The clean Wehrmacht myth. There were plenty of regular German soldiers in the Heer that engaged in 'security operations' to murder Jews and other undesirables across the newly conquered territory of the Reich just like the Einsazgruppen.

The facts was that the SS was a convenient place to lay all the blame so that we could employ German soldiers into the Bundeswehr in the 50s.
After all, they had more experience fighting the USSR than anyone and we couldn't take in high ranking officers who were part of a criminal organisation.

By the way, I have no interest in your gun laws. I've come to the conclusion that unless you are culturally American you can't fully understand, just like you will never understand why we don't want them, and that it's not my place to say. I just find the clean Wehrmacht myth an extremely interesting example of the saying that history isn't what happened, its what people want you to think happened.
1
Mr. G
Posts
4188
Joined
12/23/2009
Location
Riverside, CA US
8/18/2019 1:49pm
Mr. G wrote:
As has already been said Assault rifles are already illegal. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't AR's in CA have to be loaded one at...
As has already been said Assault rifles are already illegal. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't AR's in CA have to be loaded one at a time? This would make the old M1 Garand much more capable since one can load 8 at at time and it's more powerful. It doesn't look dangerous to the Left so it goes unnoticed. Good thing since I have a McCoy. That thing is amazing.
captmoto wrote:
Yes but there are mag loaders to speed up the process. Mags must be fixed or require disassembly to change magazines and are limited to 10...
Yes but there are mag loaders to speed up the process. Mags must be fixed or require disassembly to change magazines and are limited to 10 round magazines. There are already work arounds for the lock. Stupid California legislators are playing whack-a-mole with gun laws.
McCoy = M1?
Yes, it's a match tuned version. he is no longer around.
1
SEEMEFIRST
Posts
10965
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Arlington, TX US
8/18/2019 2:51pm Edited Date/Time 8/18/2019 2:52pm
Mr. G wrote:
Yes, it's a match tuned version. [img]https://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2019/08/18/367104/s1200_mccoy_m1.jpg[/img] he is no longer around.
Yes, it's a match tuned version. he is no longer around.
Pretty rifle!

So you have "clips" and a "mag".
No matter what the news people call it, they'll be right with that one. Laughing
lostboy819
Posts
11493
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Somewhere, CO US
Fantasy
1568th
8/18/2019 10:18pm
I like the term Tactical rifle much better than Assault weapon, I have a gun safe full of Tactical rifles that have never assaulted anyone.
5
SEEMEFIRST
Posts
10965
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Arlington, TX US
8/18/2019 10:56pm
So me perched with a standard AR, is more deadly than me perched with my 742?

I'm pretty good at 400 yards with the 742.
It is also capable of shooting 240 gr. Bullets.
I have never fired one that size, and tend to hang around the 150 grain range.

The AR in .223 is what, 55 gr?

Yeah, I'll take my chances with the AR hit.

My 742 has the same rate of fire as an AR, it just doesn't make sense.

If I was 200 yards away, shooting at the crowd leaving a football game, I believe the 30.06 would win the kill game.

1
SEEMEFIRST
Posts
10965
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Arlington, TX US
8/19/2019 12:16am
Please government decide to make the 6.8mm SPC a thing.
SEE ARE125
Posts
5567
Joined
3/28/2012
Location
TN US
8/19/2019 5:16am
lostboy819 wrote:
I like the term Tactical rifle much better than Assault weapon, I have a gun safe full of Tactical rifles that have never assaulted anyone.
That sounds much more fitting. However, tactical doesn’t sound as scary as assault, and wording is key when trying to prey on people's emotions. I wonder if the people calling it that actually think the “AR” in AR-15 stands for assault rifle?
2
lostboy819
Posts
11493
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Somewhere, CO US
Fantasy
1568th
8/19/2019 11:01am Edited Date/Time 8/19/2019 11:02am
lostboy819 wrote:
I like the term Tactical rifle much better than Assault weapon, I have a gun safe full of Tactical rifles that have never assaulted anyone.
SEE ARE125 wrote:
That sounds much more fitting. However, tactical doesn’t sound as scary as assault, and wording is key when trying to prey on people's emotions. I wonder...
That sounds much more fitting. However, tactical doesn’t sound as scary as assault, and wording is key when trying to prey on people's emotions. I wonder if the people calling it that actually think the “AR” in AR-15 stands for assault rifle?
I am sure that both Rosepeddle441 and Shitfaced believe that's what AR stands for as they are both pretty good at stating their own opinion's and then trying to pass it off as facts. Evil
1
8/19/2019 11:02am
Ban the rifle that's been around for 50 years instead of the meds that have been destroying our young men and boys for the last 20. You've got more of fear from the pharmaceutical industry and you do from the likes of Smith & Wesson and Remington.
3
GuyB
Posts
35693
Joined
7/10/2006
Location
Aliso Viejo, CA US
Fantasy
1274th
8/19/2019 2:20pm
Just like elsewhere in here, the surest way to have your post go on a diet is...

Mention any politician (for or against).

Mention any political party (for or against).
2
Mr. G
Posts
4188
Joined
12/23/2009
Location
Riverside, CA US
8/19/2019 6:00pm
How about some 19th Century technology? Looking back from the second to furthest target. Sharps 45-90 black powder. Better have a shoulder pad.
1
Titan1
Posts
8592
Joined
2/3/2010
Location
Lehi, UT US
8/20/2019 3:50pm
Shiftfaced wrote:
Call it whatever you want, we all know what we are talking about. I realize that nothing will really change. Thanks to the NRA, that have...
Call it whatever you want, we all know what we are talking about.

I realize that nothing will really change.

Thanks to the NRA, that have ensured our nation is flooded with guns, and they have worked very diligently to ensure as many people have access to them as possible.

We incarcerate more people than any other nation.

We experience a more mass shooting events than any other nation.

(4+ “points”) among our 4chan brothers.

More Americans yearly turn guns on each other than were killed on 9/11.

Yet some think is is just fine, so nothing will be done.

In my opinion, that is really the end of the story.

4chan wins, we will continue to kill each other, and we have nobody to blame other than ourselves.

Hasta.

Shifty
Guns have to be the only thing where law abiding citizens are punished for the behavior of criminals.

Someone breaks the law and kills someone driving drunk...its the drivers fault...no call to ban alcohol or punish responsible drinkers.

Someone breaks the law kills someone with a gun...its the guns fault...must ban guns and punish law abiding citizens.

It makes absolutely zero sense to me.

I'm mean the guns get so much blame for this crap why not just let the murderer off the hook...I mean, guns are the problem...it wasn't the persons fault...let him go...and lets take away all the guns so he can't do it again. (That is literally the logic I see all the time.)
Titan1
Posts
8592
Joined
2/3/2010
Location
Lehi, UT US
8/20/2019 3:59pm
Alcohol, like guns, is an inanimate object. And when in the hands of a responsible person, is completely harmless (besides to that persons liver)...but, like guns, in the hands an irresponsible person is deadly.

Coincidentally...alcohol kills far more people than assault rifles do...yet, no calls to ban alcohol...no calls for alcohol control. Why? Why blame an inanimate object in one instance (guns) to "save lives"....but not blame another, far more deadly, inanimate object in another instance (alcohol) to "save lives"?

Hurry...someone call this out as an apples to oranges comparison...
6

Post a reply to: Assault weapons

The Latest